HD 197 
1830b 
Copy 1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



027 331 558 5 






/3 



HD 197 

r 1830b SPEECH 

Copy 1 



Mr. JOHNSTON, OF LOUISIANA 



THE RESOLUTION OF Mr. FOOT, OF CONMECTICUT, 



RELATIVE TO 



BEING UNDER CONSIDERATION. 



, I 



BSLIVSRED IN THE BERATE OF THE tTKITED 8TATE3, MARCH 30, 1830. 






washi: 

S»BIKTED BT GALES & 8EATOK. 
1830. 



fc\ 



• \ 



*^v 



SPEECH 



Mr. President: 

It is no vain ambition of display here, but a deep sense of my pub- 
lic duty, that induces me to trespass on the time and patience of the 
Senate. I have waited until every gentleman has spoken : the topics 
are exhausted ; the attention wearied ; the excitement has passed 
away; and I have neither the spirit not' talent to revive the interest 
or give animation to the debate. 

The novel principles, and, as I think, the dangerous doctrines 
avowed here, as well as the extraordinary course pursued in the 
-discussion, make it my duty to speak, however irksome the task, and 
however inadequately that task may be performed. 

The attack made here, in behalf of the West, upon the North, is of 
a character to make it necessary for me to disavow the sentiments, 
and to disclaim for myself and for my State any participation in the 
charge. If it was the object of the gentleman of Missouri, [Mr. 
Benton,] to transfuse his own feelings into the bosom of the West; 
if it was liis purpose to excite prejudice there ; if it was his design to 
wound the pride and sensibility of the North, by injurious reproaches 
and invidious comparisons, to exasperate the passions and alienate 
the affections of the People, he has been but too successful. # 

No one at a distance, without the means of explanation, can read 
that speech, with its formidable array of charges, specifications, and 
facts, — with its commentaries and criminations, and not feel the pre- 
judice they were intended to excite. 

It has been said, in the course of the debate, that J am a Western 
man, and the advocate of Western interests. Sir, I am a Western man. 
I feel a strong degree of attachment to the West. I will be her faith- 
ful representative. I will guard her interests and defend her rights. 
I shall be proud of her approbation. I am the advocate of Western 
interests, — not merely because they are Western, but because they are 
equally a part of the interests of my own State, and a part of the 
great interests of the whole. 

In looking to the interests of my State, after the security of pro- 
perty and liberty under her own laws, I consider the stability of this 
Union as the greatest and highest concern. I look to the extent of 
this great country, its natural and political divisions, the objects of 
the Union, and the Constitution established for its government ; and 
from these I deduce my duties. Under this Union we find a market 
for our productions, peace, security, and commerce, without which 
property would have no value, and liberty no enjoyment ; and from 
these considerations I learn to cherish and defend it. 



It comports with my own feelings, and with the sentiments of my 
constituents, to take the most enlarged and liberal views of all our 
great national interests. 

While I agree, in general, with the gentleman from Missouri, about 
the interests of the West, 1 am compelled to differ from him entirely 
in the mode of securing them. What is the great interest of the 
Western States at this moment ? To obtain some modification of the 
land system more favorable to the settlement of the West. And how 
does he propose to accomplish this object ? By assailing the whole 
North, by charging them with systematic hostility to the West for 
more than forty years. He has ransacked the archives, collected 
every fact, arrayed exevy charge, and presented them under the high- 
est coloring, to prove what can only exist in his imagination, a settled 
policy, steadily pursued on the part of the North, to stifle the birth and 
cripple the growth of the West, until he has driven every member, from 
a sense of pride, into an opposition to every scheme he may recom- 
mend. And has he gained the South, or a single vote in that quarter, 
more than he had before ? Will they change their principles ? Will 
the charge against the North, and the comparisons with the South, 
make any impressions on the South ? Are they so easily won, and 
are they thus to be flattered out of their votes ? 
■ Sir* we had gained much in public opinion. The most favorable 
dispositions were manifested from all quarters. Several propositions 
had been made, by members of different States, of great liberality. 

The member from Virginia [Mr. Tazewell] had some time since 
proposed, for great political considerations, to cede the lands to the 
States in which they lie. This was founded on the idea of placing the 
new States on a footing with the old States ; to cutoff the dependence 
upon the General Government ; to diminish the patronage of office^ 
and the expense of legislation, &c. 

Another gentleman from New York, now in the Cabinet, [Mr. Van 
Buren] proposed to cede the lands for some reasonable equivalent. 

We have had the graduating bill several times under discussion, and 
the object of graduating the price to the quality, and of reducing the 
price to settlers, the main object of the bill, has been much approved. 
The objection to it was as to the details — to the mode of obtaining 
the object. It embraces too large a quantity of land, and runs down 
the price too low and too rapidly. We have heard from the North 
and South during this debate, the most liberal principles on this sub- 
ject. Without making any specific propositions, both the gentlemen from 
Massachusetts and South Carolina have the same enlarged, liberal, 
and statesman-like views. Our opinions began to approximate, and 
there was every reason to expect a favorable adjustment of this great 
interest. I regret thfit the gentleman has thought this a proper time to 
make this injurious attack upon a large section of country, of whose 
justice and liberality to the West we had so many proofs. 

There appeared to me, besides the votes that have been referred to ? 
a general coincidence of opinion between the North and the West, 
upon most questions of great public interest ; — the construction of 



the Constitution, the policy of the Government, and especially upon 
the Tariff, and all subjects of Internal Improvement. I regret this 
attempt, at this time particularly, to separate these interests. I de- 
precate the unfortunate influence it may exercise over our legislation. 

Sir, I deny the right of the gentleman to speak in the name of the West. 

I deny his right to speak for me or for my State. I do not choose 
that any man should make political friendships or enmities for me or 
my State. 

And I deny that the charge of hostility to the West has any founda- 
tion. 

Against whom is this charge levelled ? Against the North, includ 
ing all the States north of the Potomac. And can it be intended 
to make this sweeping accusation against eleven States of the Union, 
and to induce the People of the West to believe that they have been, 
from the commencement of the Government, unfriendly to their in- 
terests ? Yet all the charges equally affect the five middle States. It 
was unfortunate during the Confederation, that the Potomac was con- 
sidered the line that separated the North and the South, and it no 
doubt at some times exercised an unfavorable influence upon legislation. 
There was a general coincidence of opinion in the States north of that 
line, upon all great questions of that period, and so there was upon 
all the subjects affecting the Western country, but without the slight- 
est feeling of hostility towards it. In all the great measures taken 
in reference to the navigation of the Mississippi, the Southern boun- 
dary line with Spain, and the defence of the West, they were actuated 
by their own patriotic views of the great interests of the country, 
under the peculiar and often pressing circumstances of the limes. In 
the midst of a war of great sacrifice and suffering, in which every 
nerve was exerted, the whole South overrun, how could they go to the 
relief of the West ? Instead of these reproaches from the West, they 
ought to receive the homage of our gratitude for the firmness, the for- 
titude, and constancy, with which they carried us through the trying 
scenes of the Revolution. 

No great measure that was adopted, requiring the consent of nine 
States, could be carried, without the votes of at least five of these 
Northern States. 

Will not New York, and New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Delaware, 
and Maryland, see, that they concurred with the other Northern States 
in all the measures of hostility imputed to them ? That their names 
are formally arranged, side by side, in high relief, with the States of 
the North ? And will they comprehend how they escape from the 
charge? Will they see how the exception can exclude them from all 
the odium, if any, that these measures are calculated to excite in the 
minds of the people of the West? 

But, sir, New England is the real point of attack. No, not even 
New England, not the republican party of New England, which con- 
stituted, at every period for the last twenty years, not less than one- 
half of the people of that section : and, especially, he excludes the de- 
mocracy of the North, as they are now called, par excellence, to dis* 



6 

tinguish some of them from their republican brethren here, who now 
represent the North. The attack is aimed only at the Federal party 
there. But then that party is mostly extinct. None have joined the 
ranks since 1801. No politician coming into life since that time, has 
found it wise or expedient to try to stem that current. There can be 
no Federalists now, (except the very few who are so from family pride 
or real independence of character,) under fifty years of age. Besides, 
many of the veterans have died, or retired from the theatre of public 
life. Those that remain, have suffered the ban of the republic, in the 
form of proscription, for twenty-eight years. Many of them, during 
the era of good feeling, in the belief that the contest was injudicious 
and unavailing, have given in. The few men that remain, advanced 
in life, seem still to be the objects of bitter and unrelenting persecu- 
tion. But, sir, the accusation does not go even to this small remnant. 
It excepts all those who supported the last war. It is aimed, then, it 
is said, at the Hartford Convention ; no, not even those of that class 
who have supported the election of the President ; they have received 
absolution ; and of them, it has been said in debate, there are many 
intelligent and honest men who had no improper designs, and were mis- 
led by the few ambitious leaders of the Convention. Against whom, 
then, is the accusation levelled ? This bold charge, then, against the 
North dwindles down at last to be a mere attack on a few old and re- 
tired politicians of the Hartford Convention ; and, to sustain the 
charge, it is necessary to array before the public the votes of all the 
States of New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, De- 
laware, and Maryland, in regard to the defence and settlement of the 
West, during all the eventful period of the Revolutionary war. 

But, sir, what does the charge turn out to be ? a system of hostili- 
ty, pursued many years to prevent the settlement of the West. These 
charges and the facts adduced to establish them, have been fully ex- 
amined and explained, by both Senators from Maine, (Messrs. Sprague 
and Holmes. ) They have done their duty, by vindicating their coun- 
try. Sir, I take a very different view of the subject. The charge involves 
a palpable incongruity of conduct. The States demanded the cession 
of the Western lands as a part of the acquisition of the war, and for 
the purpose of applying their avails to discharge the debt created in 
carrying it on. They contended with Spain, during a long and ar- 
duous negotiation, for the utmost Southern boundary, and finally es- 
tablished the thirty -first degree of North latitude. They instructed 
the minister to adhere to this line, and would not even authorize the 
treaty, without its final ratification by themselves. They afterwards 
gave Georgia more than a million of dollars, and undertook the extin- 
guishment of the Indian title. They subsequently paid five millions 
of dollars to settle the Yazoo Claim. The country North West of Ohio 
was conquered from the Indians, after a conflict of several years, at 
an expense of five millions of dollars. They have besides, paid large 
sums for the extinguishment of Indian titles. They established the 
Ordinance of 1787, for the government of this Territory, and passed 
laws for the surveying and sale of the lands; and now, it is gravely 



said, that they have pursued a systematic course of hostility to the 
West; that these sagacious and intelligent men, who have acquired 
these lands at so much cost, and who pursued this object with so 
much perseverance, and for so long a time, had no object in view, 
but to stifle the birth, and cripple the growth of the West. The 
whole charge is utterly inconsistent with itself; and the facts them- 
selves refute it. 

After the acquisition of an immense territory, by cessions from the 
States, and by treaties with Foreign Nations at a vast expense, and 
after securing it by conquest or by purchase of the Indians, they 
adopted a wise and paternal system of administration. The whole 
has been divided into territories of convenient and compact size, that 
now form States of the Union. There are six Surveyor Generals' 
offices, and more than two hundred millions of acres of land surveyed 
and ready for market. These lands are divided into squares of 
six miles, and subdivided down to eighty acres, so as to suit every 
class of purchasers. There are forty-twoLand Offices in the most con- 
venient situations for the sale of the lands ; the price was reduced in 
1820, to one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre ; and several pre- 
emption laws have passed, to secure the rights of settlers, and a ge- 
neral privilege of entering at the minimum price, any land that has 
been once offered for sale. There is nothing in all this, that seems 
to indicate a spirit of hostility to the growth of the West. The con- 
duct of the Government has been marked by extreme liberality as 
well as wisdom, towards the new States. They gave them one twen- 
tieth of the proceeds of the sales of the lands for roads. One sec- 
tion in every township for schools, and two townships in every State 
for colleges, in consideration of exempting these lands from taxation 
for five years after the sale. Besides this five per cent., they have 
appropriated more than a million and a half of dollars to the Cumber- 
land Road, and its continuation through the Western States, besides 
the proceeds of the five percent. They have given more than two mil- 
lions of acres of land to different Western States for canals; and they 
released purchasers of public lands to an immense amount. These 
lands were ceded to the Government, and pledged for the payment of 
Hie public debt ; they have been disposed of, with that view. They 
have brought into the Treasury, near forty millions of dollars. The 
price has been moderate, such as to enable the people to buy, and to 
prevent the acquisition of large quantities on speculation. And 
what is the result? More than four millions of industrious and in- 
telligent people, more than the original stock at the Revolution, a 
country highly improved, and rapidly advancing. If it was the ob- 
ject of the North to prevent the growth of the West, they have been 
singularly unfortunate. Great and flourishing communities have 
risen up in the wilderness, in spite of their supposed hostility. 

The reduction of the price to one dollar twenty-five cents, in the 
year 1820, is now brought as a serious charge. It became a matter 
of prudenee and necessity, in consequence of the great and increasing 
rage for speculation, which had raised the debt from eight millions, 
to twenty-one and a half millions, in less than three years* The 



8 

Government wisely stopped the credit system, which put an end 
to purchases on speculation, reduced the price, and then generously 
gave relief to the People. The continuation of that system would 
have created an immense debt in the West to the General Govern- 
ment, oppressive to the inhabitants, and ruinous to the country. It 
is greatly to be regretted, that the change had not been made when 
the debt began to accumulate. 

But, sir, let us return to the other charges: — 
The charge of surrendering the navigation of the Mississippi, is 
again renewed, to give color to the idea of hostility to the West. Mr. 
Madison says, that soon after the commencement of the war with 
England, at the period of greatest distress, the Northern and East- 
ern States, refused to relinquish the navigation, even for the sub- 
stantial aid and succour of Spain, "sensible it might be dangerous to 
surrender that important right, particularly to the inhabitants of the 
Western Country." And when instructions were afterwards given to 
our Minister to negotiate a treaty, it was expressly enjoined upon 
him, to stipulate for the right of the United States to their territorial 
bounds, and the free navigation of the Mississippi, from the source 
to the ocean, as established by treaties with Great Britain, and that 
he neither conclude nor sign any treaty, until he had communicated 
the same to Congress, and received their approbation. Congress 
had obtained, from Great Britain, a recognition of a conditional boun- 
dary, to extend to the thirty first degree of north latitude, and the 
right to navigate the Mississippi. These instructions evince the de- 
termination of Congress, to maintain their territorial rights to the 
utmost Southern limit, and with them the concomitant right to the 
free use of the river. And so jealous were they, of these rights and 
privileges, that the Minister, the then Secretary of Foreign Affairs, 
Mr. Jay, a man of great public confidence, was not permitted to con- 
clude a treaty without the approbation of Congress. 

The United States, exhausted by the war, destitute of funds, with- 
out public credit, with an inefficient Government, were in no situation 
to go to war with Spain, then connected with France and other pow- 
ers of Europe. On the contrary, it was our policy to form a com- 
mercial treaty, then proposed to her on the most favorable terms, 
and to prevent any coalition with England. After the most urgent 
representations were made by our Minister, with regard to the na- 
vigation of the river, «■ the concluding answer, said he, to all my argu- 
ments, has steadily been, that the king will never yield that point, nor 
consent to any compromise about it; for that it always has been, andcontin- 
nues4o be one of their maxims of policy, to exclude all mankind from 
their American shores." 

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, [Mr. Jay] in this situation, reported 
to Congress, that the treaty with Spain was of great political and com- 
mercial importance; that, unless this point could be settled, no trea- 
ty, however advantageous, could be concluded ; that Spain then ex- 
cluded us from that navigation, and held it with a strong hand against 
us; that she would not yield it peaceably, and therefore we could 



9 

only acquire it by war ; that we were unprepared for war with any 
Power ; that the Mississippi would continue shut, France would tell 
us our claim was ill-founded, the Spanish posts on its banks would be 
strengthened, and we must either wait in patience for better days, or 
plunge into an unpopular and dangerous war. In this situation, he 
submitted to Congress the expediency of yielding our right to Spain 
for twenty-five years, without waiving our right to resume it, at a 
time, when we should be more competent to maintain it. On one side 
were presented peace, commerce, and friendship, with a powerful State — 
on the other, war, with all its evils, in defence of a valuable right, or 
the waiver of that right for a limited time, with a view to its permanent 
security. Seven Northern and Eastern States, including New York, 
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, were in favor of making this propo- 
sition ; a sacrifice they felt bound to make, under the peculiar and 
pressing exigencies of the times; "but there was not," (said Mr. 
Lee, in the Virginia Convention,) "a gentleman in that Congress. 
" who had an idea of surrendering the navigation of that river." 
And Mr. Madison said, " they had noidea of absolutely alienating it :" 
"the temporary cession, it was supposed, would fix the permanent 
" right in our favor, and prevent a dangerous coalition with England." 
Whatever opinion may be now formed of the wisdom of this propo- 
sition, it must be manifest that no feeling of hostility to the West in- 
fluenced their judgment. They obtained the greatest possible con- 
cession of territory from England; they maintained our right through 
this whole negotiation, to the Slst degree North latitude; they tried 
by every means to obtain the navigation of the river from Spain ; 
and it was not until all hope was abandoned that they consented, as 
the means of peace, and, to avoid a war, for which they were unpre- 
pared, to forbear the use of it until a more favorable period. But 
they did not stop here : they instructed the Secretary of Foreign 
Affairs to propose, and, if possible, to obtain, the right to transport 
our productions from the Slst degree to New Orleans, with a right 
of deposite at New Orleans, &c; but nothing was done under these 
instructions, and the whole subject was referred to the new Federal 
Government. A treaty was eventually made with Spain, which se- 
cured to us the 31st degree of North latitude, our utmost Southern 
boundary, the right to navigate the river, with adeposite at New Or- 
leans, &c. The Government immediately obtained a cession of the 
lands embraced by this treaty, from the State of Georgia, erected 
two Territorial Governments, extended over them the laws of the 
Union, extinguished the Yazoo title, adjusted the private claims, and, 
so far from feeling that the growth of the West was incompatible 
with the interest of the North, they have done every thing to foster 
it. The Government, having expended more than seven millions of 
dollars in the acquisition of this country, are now accused of the folly 
and absurdity of preventing its growth and settlement. 

When, at a subsequent period, the right of deposite was violated, 
these men, who are now aimed at, maintained, with more spirit than 
prudence, the right of the United States to the free navigation of the 



10 

river, and proposed to authorize the President to take possession of 
New Orleans. But Mr. Jefferson entertained more wise and mode- 
rate views. He proposed to obtain redress by pacific means, and in- 
stituted the Embassy which fortunately terminated in the acquisition 
of Louisiana, and these are his sentiments on the subject : 

"The question which divided our Legislature, (but not the nation) 
" was, whether we should take it at once, and enter, single-handed, 
** into war with the most powerful nation on the earth, or place 
u things on the best footing practicable for the present, and avail 
" ourselves of the first war in Europe, (which it was clear was at no 
«' great distance) to obtain the country as the price of our neutrality, 
" or as a reprisal for wrongs which we were sure enough to receive. 
" The war happened somewhat sooner than was expected : but our 
" measures were previously taken, and the thing took the best turn 
" for both parties. Those who were honest in their reasons for pre- 
" ferring immediate war, will, in their candor, rejoice that their opi- 
" nion was not followed. They may, indeed, still believe it was the 
" best opinion, according to probabilities. We, however, believed 
<; otherwise, and they, I am sure, will now be glad that we did." 

The gentleman from Missouri has accused the Federal Govern- 
ment of entire neglect and abandonment of the West, from 1774 to 
1790. He has presented a shocking picture of savage warfare.' 
This is a chord that will vibrate in the West, and is well calculated 
to excite prejudice in the minds of those, who have not the means of 
correct information. He might with equal propriety have given us 
a description of the distress, and suffering, and sacrifice, of the Re- 
volutionary war in the East; during which all our cities were suc- 
cessively occupied by the enemy, and during the three last years of 
which the whole South was overrun and laid waste. The People 
knew that, in going to the West, at that period, they went beyond 
the protection of the Government, that it had neither the means nor 
the men to give succour or relief. He comes down, however, to the 
year 1786, to accuse the North of "unrelenting severity" towards 
the West. No charge was ever more unjustly made. Instead of ta- 
king an enlarged and liberal view of the general policy of the Go- 
vernment in regard to the Indians of the West, he has singled out a 
particular occurrence, in which there was a difference of opinion, not 
in relation to the object, but in the mode by which both sides sought 
to obtain it. Both parties in this question were anxious for peace 
with all the Indians, but entertained views somewhat different as to the 
mode in which that object was to be obtained. One party desired to 
give peace and security to the frontiers, by amicable treaties with 
the Indians — the other by military force ; but neither for a moment 
thought of abandoning the West. As soon as the definitive treaty 
was signed, Congress set on foot Conventions with all the Indian 
tribes, and, to expedite the holding of treaties, three hundred and 
fifty men were held in readiness to protect the Commissioners. Trea- 
ties were successively made with all the tribes of Indians. In 1785 
a treaty was made with the Wyandots, Delaware, Chippewa, and 
Ottawa tribes, and on the S 1st January, 1786, a treaty was concluded 



11 

at the mouth of the Great Miami, with the Shawnee nation. Seven 
hundred men, drawn from New England, were placed in the Western 
country, to defend the frontiers. Congress were pursuing steadily this 
system — when, in consequence of some depredations, the South con- 
ceived the necessity of marching a large armed force into the Indian 
country, to compel them to make peace. The North considered these 
as irregular parties, making incursions without the authority of the 
tribes ; and thought that they ought to organize the Indian department, 
and adopt such measures as would secure peace to the Indians and 
safety to the inhabitants ot the frontiers. 

The resolution to detach four companies had the approbation of but 
one State, — the resolution to detach two had the negative of but one 
State. The objection, therefore, was to the number of companies to 
be moved, and to weakening the other points of defence. The North 
was opposed to carrying the war among the Indians, but in favor of 
employing the militia for defence, when necessary. The South desir- 
ed "an expedition into the Indian territory ," and to call out one 
thousand militia. The North desired to treat with the Indians ami- 
cably, to avoid war and expense, and to use the military only for de- 
fence. They were unwilling to make war, because they thought the 
object could be better obtained by peaceful means — they were unwil- 
ling to incur the expense, in their exhausted situation, of calling out 
one thousand militia — they were unwilling to derange the disposition 
of the regular troops that had been stationed at all the proper points 
of defence along the line of the Ohio. But they passed a resolution 
on the 30th June, 1786, to inform the Governor of Virginia, that they 
were desirous to give the most ample protection, and they requested 
him to give orders to the militia to be in readiness to unite with the 
regular troops, in such operations as the commanding officer may 
judge necessary for the protecticn of the frontiers. On the 20th of 
October, 1786, Congress resolved, unanimously, to raise one thousand 
three hundred and forty troops, in addition to the seven hundred, "to 
«< form a corps of two thousand and forty," not only "for the sup- 
" port of tlfe frontiers of the States bordering on the Western Ter- 
M ritory and the settlements on the Mississippi, but to establish the 
" possession and facilitate the surveying and settling those interme- 
'» diate lands, which have been so much relied on for the reduction of 
" the debts- bf the United States." And, on the 21st of July, 1787, 
Congress resolved to hold treaties with these hostile tribes — to hear 
their complaints — and inquire into the causes of their qftarrels with 
the settlers, and to make peace : that, for this purpose, the troops 
should be placed in such positions as to afford the most effectual pro. 
tection to the frontier inhabitants of Pennsylvania and Virginia, from 
the incursions and depredations of the Indians — for preventing in- 
trusions on the federal lands, and promoting a favorable issue to the 
treaty : that the Governor of Virginia be requested, on the applica- 
tion of the commanding officer, to embody a part of the militia, not 
exceeding one thousand, to co-operate with the troops of the United 
States, in making such expeditions against the Indians as Congress 
may direct, &c. These resolutions passed unanimously, Masaa- 



12 

chusetts,New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, voting in favor of them. 

Now, this insulated case is singled out, disconnected with the whole 
subject matter, and spread before the Western People, to induce a 
belief, that, in cousequence of Northern jealousy and Northern hos- 
tility, they utterly, "and unfeelingly neglected to give any protection 
to the West against the Indians. The effect of it may be to excite 
prejudice, to create dissension, and set apart the People of the differ- 
ent sections of the country ; but, when examined, it will be found des- 
titute of any foundation. 

In pursuance of this system, a treaty was concluded 9th January, 
1789, at Fort Harmar, by General St. Clair, with the Wyandot, 
Delaware, Ottawa, Chippewa, Pottawatamie and Sacs Nations of In- 
dians. But difficulties continued to occur with the Indians, until the 
Government was obliged to send a military force to conquer them, 
which was finally accomplished in 1794, and was followed by the 
Treaty of Greenville. Throughout this whole period, from 1786 to 
1794, Congress labored with the most patient, persevering, and pa- 
triotic exertions to procure peace for the Indians, and safety to the 
frontier ; and now the gentleman from Missouri says " that Massa- 
chusetts and the North-East abandoned the infant West to the rifle, 
the hatchet, the knife, and the burning stake of the Indian." But, 
this charge relates equally to all the States North of the Potomac, 
and to a period anterior to the existence of the Republican and Fede- 
ral parties ; and, it has been seen with what justice it is made against 
any portion of that Congress, to whose patriotic services and public 
labors the country owes so deep a debt of gratitude. 

We now pass over a period of twelve years from the formation of 
the Constitution, to the acquisition of Louisiana, during which there 
is no charge of hostility to the settlement of the West. 

The cession of Louisiana was obtained in 1803, when political par- 
ties were very violent ; when some feared that an enlargement of our 
limits might weaken the Union, and others thought, conscientiously, 
that there was no power in the Constitution to acquire territory. Yet, 
under these circumstances, there were twenty-seven votes in the Senate 
in favor of the treaty, and half of these North of the Potomac, and 
four from New England. This shews that there was no unity in the 
North — no concert even in the Federal party — no hostility to the 
West. 

It is well-known that many wise and excellent men believed the ac- 
quisition was an extra Constitutional act, and that it would require 
an amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Jefferson entertained this 
opinion himself. In his letter to Mr. Dunbar, July 17, 1803, he 
says : " they (Congress) will be obliged to ask from the People an 
amendment to the Constitution, authorizing the receiving the Pro- 
vince into the Union, and providing for its Government ; and the 
limitations of power which shall be given by that amendment, will 
be unalterable, but by the same authority." In his letter to Mr. 
Breckenridge, 12th August, 1803, he says : " This treaty must, of 
»< course, be laid before both Houses, because both have important 



18 

<« functions to exercise respecting it. They, I presume, will see their 
fi duty to their country in ratifying and paying for it, so as to secure 
«* a good which would otherwise probably be never again in their 
<* power. But I suppose they must then appeal to the nation for an 
•' additional article to the Constitution, approving and confirming an 
" act which the nation had not previously authorized. The Constitu- 
'* Hon has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still 

"-.LESS FOR INCORPORATING FOREIGN NATIONS INTO OUR UNION. 

« The Executive, in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much ad- 
« vances the good of the country, have done an act against the Consti- 
*< tution." 

It is well known that Mr. Adams entertained the same opinions, 
and he thought that the consent of the People should be obtained by 
an amendment to the Constitution and the approbation of the People 
of Louisiana. u It is well known" said he, " that my voice and my 
" opinions were in favor of the acquisition of Louisiana, and of the 
" ratification by whichi t was acquired." " Entertaining these opini- 
" ons, I voted for the bill appropriating Si 1,25 0,000 to carry into 

* effect the Louisiana Convention ; and, in a speech to the Senate on 
" the passage of that bill, I declared at once my approbation of the 
" measure, and my belief, that, to carry the treaty into entire exe- 
*' cution an amendment to the Constitution would be necessary;" and 
he moved the appointment of a committee to inquire whether any, and 
if any, what further measures were necessary to carry into effect the 
Louisiana cession treaty ; to prepare " for the annexation of the Peo- 
4i pie of Louisiana to the North American Union, and their accession 
*< to all the rights, privileges, and prerogatives of citizens of the 
" United States." 

In his speech on this subject, Mr. Adams said : 

w I am extremely solicitous that every tittle of the engagements on 
u our part in these conventions should be performed with the most 
" scrupulous good faith." « I trust they will be performed, and will 
" cheerfully lend my hand to every act necessary for the purpose, for 
« I consider the object as of the highest advantage to us ; and the 
" gentleman from Kentucky himself, who has displayed, with so much 
** eloquence, the immense importance to this Union of the possession 
** of the ceded territory, cannot carry his ideas further on that sub- 
" ject than I do." " I shall give my vote in its favor." 

I have quoted these opinions of Mr. Adams, to shew, that none of 
these imputations rest upon him, and, that there may be no misap- 
prehension or doubt left even by implication. 

" It was," he says, " upon the same principle, a conscientious be- 
" lief that Congress had not, by the Constitution, the power to exer- 

* cise the authorities, (without an amendment of the Constitution) 
M that I voted against the other acts relating to Louisiana." " There 
" remains in the country a power competent to adopt and sanction 
*< every part of our engagements, and to carry them entirely intoexe- 
" cution. For, notwithstanding the objections and apprehensions of 
" many wise, able and excellent men in various parts of the Union, 
" yet, such is the public favor attending the transaction, which com- 



14 

u menced by the negotiation of this treaty, and which, I hope, will 
" terminate in a full, undisturbed, and undisputed possession of the 
if ceded territory,- that I firmly believe, if an amendment to the Con- 
" stitution amply sufficient for the accomplishment of every thing for 
•< which we have contracted shall be proposed, as I think it ought, it 
" will be adopted by the Legislature of every State in the Union." 

Mr. Adams gave a signal instance of his freedom from all party 
influence, of the independence of his mind, and the elevation of his 
views over all ordinary, local and political calculation, in approving 
the acquisition of Louisiana. 

When, some years afterwards, the attack was made on the Chesa- 
peake by a British ship of war, Mr. Adams was among the first to take 
side with the country, and to pledge himself to aid and assist the con- 
stituted authorities with all his personal influence and exertions to sup- 
port them in such measures as they might adopt. He attended the 
meetings of the People in Boston to express their sentiments, and they 
are worthy of the place and the occasion. He was on the committee 
that proposed the resolutions for the first meeting, of which Mr. Gerry 
was moderator, and chairman of the committee which reported the 
resolutions at the second meeting. 

Boston, 10th Jult, 1807. 
Mr. Gerry, Moderator — George Blake, Secretary. 

Resolved, unanimously, That the late aggression committed by a British ship of 
war, on a frigate of the United States, for the avowed purpose of taking from her, by 
force, a part of her crew, was a wanton outrage upon the persons and lives of our ci- 
tizens, and a direct attack upon our national sovereignty and independence: That the 
spirited conduct of our fellow-citizens at Norfolk, on this occasion, before the orders 
of Government could be obtained, was highly honorable to themselves and to the 
Nation. 

Resolved, unanimously, That the firm, dignified, and temperate policy, adopted 
by our Executive, at this momentous crisis, is entitled to our most cordial approbation 
and support. % 

Resolved, unanimously, That, with all our personal influence and exertions, we 
will aid and assist the constituted authorities in carrying the Proclamation of the Pre< 
sident of the United States, in every particular, into full and effectual execution. 

Meeting, Faneuil Hall, 16th July, 1807. 
Mr. Adams, Chairman of the committee. 

Resolved, That we consider the unprovoked attack made on the United States* 
armed ship Chesapeake, by the British ship of war Leopard, a wanton outrage upon 
the lives of our fellow-citizens, a direct violation of our national honor, and an in- 
fringement of our national rights and sovereignty. 

Resolved, That we most sincerely approve *he proclamation and the firm and dis- 
passionate course of policy pursued by the President of the United States, and we 
will cordially unite with our fellow-citizens in affording effectual support to such mea- 
sures as our Government may further adopt in the present crisis of our affairs. 

This was an insult to our flag, and an outrage on our sovereignty ; 
it was an affair between our country and a foreign nation — they sa- 
crificed all party considerations. When Mr. Adams came to Con- 
gress, this. affair not atoned for, he made good his promise ; he deter- 
mined to support the administration in any course they might adopt 
to vindicate the honor of the country. The President recommended the 
embargo, and Mr. Adams gave it his unqualified sVpport, because he 
believed it a wise and prudent measure of precaution, and because he 



15 

was unwilling to thwart the views of the administration for partypur- 
poses, and because he had solemnly pledged himself to give effect to 
such measures as the Government should adopt upon its responsibility. 
The measure, no doubt injurious to the Northern interests, became 
unpopular, and Mr. Adams, in obedience to his principles, resigned 
the trust into the hands of his constituents, andretired, but continued, 
in private life, to give his advice and opinions to the friends of the 
administration, when required, upon the difficult questions that arose 
in that crisis of our affairs. 

The embargo locked up the navigation, and destroyed for the time 
the commerce of the North. It produced great private distress, and 
ruined thousands. It is not, therefore, extraordinary, that a measure 
so severely felt should have been opposed. They believed an embargo, 
without limitation of time, that destroyed commerce, to be a violation 
of the constitutional power of Congress to regulate commerce. They 
submitted the case to the Courts, it was decided against them, and 
they acquiesced. But the opposition to the embargo grew out of their 
sense of their own interests, and not from mere political hostility. 
The embargo was repealed and the non-intercourse substituted in 
March, 1809, which led immediately to the arrangement with Ers- 
kme, upon which all parties expressed the highest satisfaction. Mr. 
Randolph moved in the House of Representatives, " that the promp- 
" titude and frankness with which the President of the United States 
« has met the overtures of the Government of Great Britain towards 
(( a restoration of harmony and free commercial intercourse between 
M the two nations, meet the approbation of this House." 

The Federal members now expressed their hearty approbation of 
the President, and thanked him cordially for the c6untry. They said — 
" The promptitude and frankness with which the President has met 
" the overtures of Great Britain, while they receive the applause and 
*< gratitude of the nation, call not less imperiously for an unequivo- 
'< cal expression of them by the House." 

The Governor of Massachusetts said to the Legislature — 
<s We have great reason to indulg#the hope of realizing those views 
** (arising from a revival of commerce) from the prompt and arnica- 
" ble disposition, with which itis understood the present Federal admin- 
" istration have met the conciliatory overtures of Great Britain — a 
" disposition which is entitled to and will certainly receive, the hearty 
" approbation of every one who sincerely loves the peace and prosperi- 
" ty of the nation." The Senate and House of Representatives replied, 
" that the prompt acceptance of the overtures of Great Britain meets 
" the approbation and will ensure the support of this Commonwealth." 
These sentiments seem to indicate that the opposition heretofore had 
been founded in principle, and not in political hostility to the Executive, 
The arrangement was disavowed by the Government of Great Britain, 
and the non-intercourse restored. Mr. Adams left the country 
on a foreign mission, under the appointment of Mr. Madison. He 
was absent during the war, and officiated as one of the American minis- 
ters in negotiating the treaty of peace. He returned in 1817, and was 
appointed by Mr. Monroe, Secretary of State. 



16 

It is further charged that the Legislature of Massachusetts in 1813 
resolved, that the Admission into the Union of States created in 
countries not comprehended within the original limits of the United 
States, is not authorized by the letter, or spirit of the Constitution $ 
and that it was the interest and duty of the State to oppose the admis- 
sion of such State into the Union, as a measure tending to a dissolu- 
tion of the Union. And it is said, J adhere to a party opposed to the 
admission of Louisiana into the Union. Sir, is that in any sense 
true? What have I to do, or any existing party, or Mr. Adams, 
with the persons who opposed the acquisition of Louisiana, twenty- 
seven years ago ? They are all gone from the theatre of public af- 
fairs. Mr. Adams was not united with them, and they have ceased 
to exist as a party. It is seventeen years since the passage of this 
resolution. Mr. Adams was not in the country. The interests and 
passions and excitements of that day have passed away ; new men 
and new parties have arisen, with different principles and other 
views. New England was revolutionized and republicanized, as 
you may see by her delegation here, many of whom have been per- 
sonally alluded to on the floor. Massachusetts did not declare it a 
palpable violation of the Constitution, and that she had a right to 
put forth her veto, and annul the act. And, sir, what is there to 
connect me in any party with this Resolution, that does not equally 
attach the gentleman himself to the anti-Tariff resolutions of South 
Carolina, and make him responsible for them. 

He, Mr. Adams, has been charged with sacrificing the interests 
of the country, in establishing the western boundary, in the treaty 
with Spain. This charge has been reiterated through the papers of 
the West, where it has been greatly misrepresented or misunderstood. 

That negotiation was conducted with great ability, and our title 
to the River Grande fully sustained. But it was the object of the 
Spanish Government in ceding Florida to save the Province of Texas. 
Her Minister proposed the Mississippi as the boundary, and adhered 
to that proposition ; he seemed determined not to yield anything be- 
yond that line. The great imjbrtance of securing Florida, induced 
our Minister to propose the Colorado, which was rejected promptly. 
At this point, the negotiation came to a pause, and its entire failure 
was anticipated. The subject was reconsidered by the cabinet, and 
a compromise was proposed, and at length accepted, which fixed the 
boundary at the Sabine River. This was done to secure the Flori- 
das, and after every means had been tried in vain to obtain a greater 
extension of our limits. It was done by the whole of the Cabinet 
of Mr. Monroe, upon full consideration of all the great interests it 
involved, and was finally approved by the Senate. 

Sir, I have aimed to set the character of Mr. Adams fairly before 
the Senate, and to vindicate him from the imputations cast upon the 
North. He has filled the highest stations at home and abroad, at 
the most critical junctures, with the greatest ability ; possessing a 
mind so firm and so balanced as to preserve its independence and its 
principles, free from all political influence, he has advocated the best 
interests of his country, and avoided the errors of parties. He sup- 



17 

ported the two great leading measures of Mr. Jefferson's Adminis- 
tration. He represented this country abroad during Mr. Madison's 
term, and participated in the Treaty of Peace. He was eight years 
in the Department of State, and negotiated ^the Florida Treaty ; he 
has been four years at the head of this Government — a man of great 
learning and experience — of uncommon grasp of mind — of indefati- 
gable labor. And now, sir, it is said ** the Senator of Louisiana, 
adheres with a generous devotion, (I call it generous, for it survives 
the downfall of its object,) to that party that passed this resolution." 

It may well excite the surprise of tlte gentleman, that, with the ex- 
amples before him, and with the temptations before me, I have not also 
deserted the party, after the downfall of its object. I have the weak- 
ness no doubt of other men, and all the motives of interest and am- 
bition that govern them. My support of that party w T as founded in 
principle, and was disinterested. They who supported this cause from 
motives of interest or ambition, may desert it without any violation 
of their principles, for it will be their principle to desert any cause, 
as soon as it ceases to be their interest. 

If it is meant that I have not deserted the object of the party, in 
consequence of his defeat, it is correct. I did not ride into favor on 
his popularity, and then desert him : I did not watch the ebb of his 
fortune to throw myself adroitly into the current and swim with the 
tide. Sir, I want the moral courage to desert a cause or betray a 
party. I could not encounter the averted eye, the cold disdain, or 
the indignant scorn of my friends : I could not bear my own self-re- 
proach, or the odium of the public, from which no man can escape, 
he can never be forgotten for his desertion, nor forgiven for his 
treachery. I am less surprised when I see all the offices, emolu- 
ments, and honors of the Government distributed among the victors, 
at the facility with which pledges were violated and the cause betray- 
ed, than the gentleman can be at my adherence. It was no want of 
sagacity in me. I can calculate chances and balance probabilities as 
well as those w 7 ho know better how to avail themselves of their ta- 
lents; and if I could not, I had as much intelligence as the Dutch 
Governor of New York, who could always tell which way the wind 
blew by the weathercock. 

When the Presidential election terminated, leaving one party free, 
every one saw, it threw the balance of power into their hands, and 
those who understand the springs of human action, know the inva- 
riable law by which minorities combine. When it was known, one 
party had ninety-eight votes, and that thirty-three would turn the scale, 
it required no mathematician to calculate the chances ; and when I 
heard a voice saying, " the combinations are nearly complete," I was 
at no loss in making my calculations. It required no magician to 
work out the results, it was as plain as that two sides of a triangle 
are longer than the third side. 

When things stood thus in January 1826, we were not surprised 

that those who knew the signs of the times, should desert us. We 

knew there was a tide in the affairs of men, which must be taken at 

♦'»• flood. We knew they would dpsprt ns. exactly as the chances 

2 



18 

increased, and we are not disappointed at the great accession in a 
certain quarter, since the event is no longer doubtful. 

When the rats began to leave the ship, I was warned of the dan- 
ger, and if I did not avail myself of it, to seek safety in time, it was 
my own fault. 

But, sir, that contest is over. My principles have undergone no 
change. I shall vote for all public measures, and take the same inter- 
est in them, and act with the same zeal, I have always done. I have 
kept my mind free from the spirit of party, and above the influence 
of political feeling. I trust my principles and my political opinions, 
and my views of the great interests of the country, will never suffer 
the slightest change, whoever may be called to preside over it. 

The present party in power is a mere personal party ; it is com- 
posed of men of all parties, who never agreed in any measures of 
administration before. Nay, it is composed of men of opposite prin- 
ciples, and of the most heterogeneous elements ; men who may com- 
bine, but can never adhere. It was formed for good reasons no doubt ; 
but it was at best, a mere personal preference of one man to another. 
Now to change sides, requires no change of political principles, and 
may greatly advance a man's fortune ; besides, it is a stale, unprofit- 
able thing, to be struggling against power and numbers, in a hopeless 
minority, and working in that barren field, where there is neither 
executive favor, nor popular applause, nor public honor. 

If the condition of adhering to the executive is to sacrifice princi- 
ples to sustain his measures, then it is a dangerous connection, and 
will produce the most fatal effect. It is to make one overruling power 
in the Government ; a power capable of drawing after it every other 
power, even the power of the People. And if the President, armed 
with the extraordinary power now claimed, over all the offices, 
emoluments and honors of the Government, does not draw after it the 
Representatives of the People, and the aid of the press, it is because 
they are above the influence. And if adherence to a party produces no 
effect, and lays us under no obligations or restraints, and we preserve 
our independence, and vote as we please, I can perceive no great use in 
changing sides, or changing names, so far as the country is concerned : 
those who have objects beyond that, may no doubt obtain them in 
that mode. 

The gentleman has said, we were once together, and intimates a 
wish that we may meet again. Sir, it is not at all improbable. Those 
w T ho travel in opposite directions on the political circle, are sure to 
meet. The changes of public opinion, and the combination of par- 
ties are so rapid, that no one can foretell where, or with whom he 
may be found. When I look around, and see who are together, and 
how we have been separated, and remember where you have all 
been, I cannot be surprized at any tiling that may occur. When I see 
the Republicans, and Federalists, Radicals, and Liberals ; when I 
remember how you stood in 1821-2, and how in 1824, and see how 
easily you came together, I do not despair of again meeting many 
of my old friends. When I remember the open hostility and secret 
plots, the charges and criminations, the violence and abuse, and now 
witness the reconciliation, the harmony and union, I am ready to ac- 



1 



19 



Sctrtf,nnHrT derfU ! I™* ma§icaI effect of ^e spirit of party, 
^ftich can soothe the irritation, and heal the wounds it makes. It is 

K^Sdffsyjffi!^ no,nat,er h0 " f ™ £%& 

Svelt'mM^t k'^Jft* have *Poken upon several subjects of 
time P It ' '" re!at ' 0n t0 the Lands > but ' fi«" I have not 

Dower rf r^ " ,y PUrp ° S ?, t0 haVe taken this occasio " to shew the 
P 3l to £«EE t'T * ' e P ub ! ic r La » ds - That the Lauds were 
the adonfio nf I f' b f. t d "P 0Sed of «"•«•« common benefit," before 
ne adoption of the Constitution, and are held only under this obliea- 

s oV't'nfr *#?' ^ SUbjeCt t0 a "- V restricti »' ' s S S- 
tions of the Constitution. What the common benefit is, must depend 

on the determination of Congress. Under this construct ioT Con S 
scho o r e n° ntra , CtS , Witl ', the new States, and havegivnVanf for 
tu on ;^' egB f' (Wl r" th ? ™ Uld " 0t S ive mone y "S«? the Consti- 

s haTAll'who Cana ' S ' , and ° tl,er ° b -< ects for the P« blic henefit. 
LI 1 tal f c al,0 thcr occasion to present my views on that subject to 

li:^lV r 7? a,U) T fl " P»'-P° se « they may be app ed" ' 
mi I \ ' f i f °» *? bave r said something about the changes proper to be 

2'f the P^ent price ought to he retained forthesales, so as to 
prevent the purchase of large quantities of land in States, by individ- 

nrte thr Ulat ' 0n - Th *J tl ', e , aCtUaI Settle1, 0U S bt to have ft for half 
P"ce , that as soon as practicable the lands ought to be classed and the 
price graduated to the.quality ; that each of the new fi ^Ute, especial- 
v of irf n \ Ml T SipPi ' Missouri, ought to receive the samTqual - 

1 w I tX I''" "T ? ttttes for internaI improvement, &c? 
.ill ' ll leaV , e to * a y before X conclude, that no law or regulation 
w 11 hasten the sales of the lands, unless they are sold on speculation 
I here are a certain number of persons, who annually arrive at ma."" 
hood, wno r e qu i re ab o U t a million of acres of land, a^d beyond that" 

S c^nds a m nd n ;L? eym t r ^^ S ' W,ied '° r ^ raustS «•„ the 

Sir, it has been said that this Resolution is the last act in that sys- 
tem of bos t, ,ty to the West, which has made so great a figure in thU 

e caned n?ehf/? l ,nd " St, ' y ??* Zeal ' 1,erceived wbat ''ad almost 
veved liZ'lT f bad , m o ,,e than 200,000,000 of acres of land sur, 

Ind th* i? i Y n 1 " T? 6 ' that we m] * se " abo «t a million a year, 
sum vel ^° t ? ,d ", 0t at that rate seI1 in ""years the land already 
exnediencv nf f^V^ naturally proposed to inquire into the 
Sf*' «t stopping the surveys, Sec. Sir, it is true we have more 
land surveyed then necessary ; there have been, heretofore though 

mentand there are large quantities of poor land, of pine woods and 

vea " S ter mal LT't T'i V® ******* l ™ bee " * a ^ 
TO-tt5ShSAp.l&- Im JS venture tosay for the honorable 
mover, that the idea of retarding the growth or preventing the sales 
of the land in the West, never entered his mind. S 

Mr. Johnston then gave way to a motion to n g imm . 



20 



APPENDIX. 



Treasury Department, 
General Land Office, February 8, 1830. 

Sir : In reply to your note of this morning 1 , 1 take leave to advise you that, on the 50th 
June, 1820, when the credit system of land sales was abolished, the debt due by pur- 
chasers of public lands was above twenty-one millions and a halj of dollars. 
On the SOtk September, 1817, the debt was about eight millions of dollars. 
I have the honor to be, with great respect, 

Your obedient servant, 

GEO. GRAHAM. 
Hon. J. S. Johnston, Senate U. S. 



By the operation of the laws of relief, from and since 2d of March, 1821, the debt 
was reduced from upwards of twenty-one millions and a half, to seven millions, before 
April, 1825. 



STATEMENT of lands sold, lands relinquished to the United States, 
and payments made by purchasers of public lands, to Slst December, 
1829. 





NETT SALES, AFTER DEDUCT- 


LANDS RELINQUISHED TO 






ING LANDS RELINQUISHED 


THE UNITED STATES. 




STATE 


AND REVERTED TO THE U. 




PAYMENTS 


OB TERRI- 


STATES. 




MADE BY PUR- 


TORY. 






CHASERS. 




Quantity. 


Purchase mo- 
ney. 


Quantity. 


Purchase mo- 
ney. 






Acres. Hds. 


Dolls. Cis. 


Acres. Hds. 


Dolls. Cts. 


Dolls. Cts. 


Ohio 


9,274,578 60 


16,813,325 60 


432,875 31 


1,038,615 54 


16,561,378 98* 


Indiana 


3,818,842 33 


6,197,835 80 


704,315 82 


1,427,466 44 


6,284,670 48 


Illinois 


1,486,497 91 


2,510,519 99 


697,334 89 


1,401,512 06 


1,931,098 70 


Missouri 


1,432,874 05 


2,452,910 77 


709,346 35 


2,004,698 77 


2,293,748 46 


Mississippi 


1,366,864 72 


2,353,982 74 


188.99J 40 


377,980 87 


2,153,739 49 


Alabama 


3,163,794 40 


7,536,081 05 


1,842,534 56 


8,649,400 38 


7,712,914 71 


Louisiana 


200,128 06 


458,894 67 


1,698 62 


3,797 25 


446,525 27 


Michigan 


479,118 80 


663,453 94 


25,196 94 


79,844 23 


652,583 89 


Arkansas 


62,302 45 


78,021 79 


- 


- 


78,021 79 


Florida 


337,360 69 


457,893 56 


- 


- 


457,893 27 




21,622,362 01 


39,522,919 91 


4,602,292 89 


14,983,315 54 


38,572,575 04 


Amount paid by the State of Pennsylvania for the triangle of land on 




Lake Erie, in the year 1792 - 


151,640 25 


Grand Total 


38,724,215 29^ 



♦ Including sales at New York and Pittsburg, sales to Ohio Company, and J. C. 
Symmes. 



APRIL 2, 1830. 



Mr. President : 

I see rising in this country a new party, under a new organiza- 
tion, and under high auspices, that, whatever may be its aim or its 
object, tends inevitably to weaken the bonds of the Union. A party, 
founding themselves upon State rights, in contradistinction to the 
rights of the General Government. Under this banner we see a sys- 
tematic and combined attack upon this Government, that will destroy 
the confidence and undermine the affections of the People. 

All the objections urged to this Constitution before its adoption, 
are revived to create prejudice and excite alarm. We are told there 
are no checks — that ** it is an uncontrolled majority, and an uncon- 
trolled majority is a despotism." It is said to be a foreign Govern- 
ment, and that the States are foreign to each other. It is said to claim 
unlimited powers ; to aim at encroachment upon the proper powers of 
the States ; that it tends to a great consolidation that will annihilat 
the States, and destroy the liberty of the People ; and, that the only 
means of protection for the People and the States, against this over- 
weening despotism, is the power to negative her laws. 

The People are told that the laws are unequal and oppressive ; that 
they are palpable, dangerous, and deliberate violations of the Con- 
stitution. 

There is a general tendency to bring the Government into con- 
tempt, and render it odious. We hear of the abuse of the power of 
Congress and of the administration. We hear of extravagant ex- 
penditure ; of bargain, and intrigue, and corruption ; of the rigorous 
conduct of the Government in relation to the lands; of the unequal 
distribution of money ; of wild and profligate schemes of improve- 
ment ; and, we see attempts to excite sectional hostilities. The press 
groans under whatever can prey upon the minds, and provoke the re- 
sentment of the People. 

Sir, this is not all — nor, I fear, the worst. There is a deliberate 
attempt to undermine the power and destroy the confidence of the 
country in the Supreme Court — that great tribunal upon which this 
Union rests — is an object of combined attack. 

This court, created by the Constitution for the decision of all ca- 
ses arising under it, as a common arbiter between the Government 
and the members that compose it, " this more than Amphictionic 
Council," it is said, is the creature of the Government, and not the 



22 

umpire of the States ; that it tends, by the course of its decisions, t© 
extend its jurisdiction, and to a consolidation, not of the Union, but of 
the Government ; that there is no security for the States against its 
encroachments. 

It is said, that, " after the Book of Judges, comes the Book of 
Kings ;" and high authority is quoted to shew that i6 they are the 
sappers and miners of the Constitution." 1 Examples of tyranny, 
drawn from the worst times of judicial history, are presented, and 
the victims carried from the dungeon to the scaffold, are exhibited to 
excite prejudice and disgust. It is said they are always the tools of 
power ; that they have never been independent ; that they are a 
u subtle corps," "working under ground to undermine the founda- 
" tion of our confederated fabric ;" " that they have been, with 
•' constancy and silence, like the approaches of death, sliding onwards 
st to consolidation, giving a diseased enlargement to the powers of 
" the General Government, and throwing chains over State rights ;" 
" that they will lay all things at their feet." 

Sir, this is not all. The gentleman from New Hampshire has bold- 
ly charged the court with prostrating the rights of the States, and has 
enumerated the cases. And how have they prostrated the rights of 
the States ? By assuming a jurisdiction ? By improper construc- 
tion ? By erroneous opinions ? Neither are pretended : but, because 
this court, in protecting the rights of the People of other States, in 
guarding the Union against the exercise of the inhibited powers by 
the States ; in maintaining the Constitution and laws of the Union, 
and preventing the violation of the obligation of contracts, the very 
object of its institution, decide against the claims and rights of the 
States ; it is said the States are prostrated : that the court is "putting 
chains on the States," and " laying all things at their feet." 

Sir, if these judgments were erroneous, they would be impeached ; 
if the authority was assumed, it would be challenged. It is a power 
expressly confided to them ; and how could this Government move a 
day without a Supreme tribunal to decide all controversies of this 
kind ; and yet it remains to be seen whether this Court, created by 
the Constitution, without power or patronage, depending upon its 
virtue and talents to sustain itself In public opinion, and which 
is essential and indispensable to the existence of this Union — can 
stand against these numerous, combined, and powerful assaults ; or, 
whether public confidence will be destroyed, the authority of the court 
impaired, the Constitution become a dead letter, and the Union dis- 
solve by its own weakness. 

The People have an habitual and cordial love and veneration for 
the State institutions, under which their property, their liberty, and 
their happiness, are secured; there is no feeling of jealousy or hostility 
to them ; there is no meditated attack upon their rights or privileges. 
We are all their guardians. But this General Government, which 
is designed to protect the States ; to guard them from danger from 
abroad ; to secure them domestic tranquillity at home ; to give them 
peace and commerce — is not so ardently cherished. There is less at- 



28 

tachment, more jealousy of its power and its encroachments, more 
centrifugal tendencies. The tie that binds the Union is more feeble ; 
many causes are operating to weaken it ; and, openly assailed from 
every quarter, it remains to be seen, whether the People will defend 
it, or, whether it has energy to preserve itself. 

It becomes the duty of every enlightened statesman and honest pa- 
triot, to " support the State Governments in all their rights, as the 
'» most competent administrations for our domestic concerns, and to 
** preserve the General Government in the whole of its constitutional 
'* vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home, and safety abroad," 
and to give to the Court as much confidence as will sustain it firm 
and unmoved, and unawed, in the legal administration of our affairs. 

Mr. President, the right of a State in this Union to annul an act of 
Congress, presents a grave question to our consideration. It is a ques- 
tion of the first impression, and of the deepest import 5 which ought 
not to be discussed under the excitement of party spirit, the influence 
of passion, or the peculiar circumstances in which any of us may find 
ourselves. It should be approached under a deep sense of the mo- 
mentous consequences to the People, to the Union, and to the coun- 
try it involves. 

Sir, I shall speak on this question, not as a lawyer and a states- 
man — that has been done already, in an able and masterly manner — 
I shall speak of it as a man and a citizen, whose hopes and happiness 
are embarked with those of his constituents in this great experiment, 
*' the world's last hope." 

It is now said the individual States have a veto on the laws, and, 
thereby, a power to suspend their operation, by which this Govern- 
ment is made to depend upon the will of each and every State. 

The right of States to annul the laws and suspend the operations 
of the Government, is not derived from the Constitution, but is a 
high and transcendental power, above the Constitution and above all 
law ; it is an abstraction from the idea of sovereign power, and a re- 
finement on the theory of government. The People of the States 
have not delegated this veto to the Legislatures ; it is a judicial, not 
a legislative power ; if it pertains to the sovereign power of the State, 
it must be a reserved power to the People, to be exercised by them 
in their sovereign capacity. But, whether a State, or the People of 
a State, have the right to a negative on the laws, is a question to be 
determined by whom ? By the State ? — That is to be the judge in 
its own cause. Or, to be submitted to the majority of the People of 
all the States ? Or, to the Supreme Court ? — It is a " controversy 
in which the United States are a party." 

Admitting the power of the State, and the right to decide for her- 
self, then each and every State in the Union has a constitutional veto 
on the laws of the United States ; then the General Government must, 
or perhaps each of the States, must have a similar power to suspend 
the laws of any other State, when it exercises any sovereign power 
that is inhibited to the States, or that comes in collision with the 
General Government and of this also, the Government ; and each State 
must decide for itself. What a scene of confusion ! 



24 

Again : each State then, and the smallest State, with the smallest 
majority in the State, may suspend the laws within her jurisdiction. 
Then the action of the Government must depend on the concurrent 
will of each and all the States. Then the laws made by a majority 
of the People, and of the States, may be controlled and counteracted 
by a small, nay, the smallest minority. The Government, if it could 
be so called, would be absurd in theory, and impracticable in prin- 
ciple. 

By the Constitution checks and balances were provided — majori- 
ties required — a veto conferred on the President, and a Supreme 
Court to decide all questions under the Constitution. All which 
were ridiculous precautions, if each State could exercise the veto, 
decide all questions for herself, and annul the expressed will of the 
majority. And what then becomes of the great political maxim, " that 
absolute acquiesence in the decisions of the majority, the vital prin- 
ciple in republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, the vi- 
tal principle and the immediate parent of despotism." 

If this veto is the legitimate right of a State, she ought not to be 
controlled, resisted or coerced. She may therefore peaceably with- 
draw from the Union, and must virtually dissolve th^ Union, be- 
cause the laws must cease to operate, (the Tariff for example,) un- 
less they operate throughout : and besides, could the Union continue,, 
separated by an intervening State ? This Union can then only exist 
as long as twenty-four States concur in opinion. If this principle 
is true, it ought to have been inserted in the Constitution. But it 
was not. And if the principle is acknowledged, then this Constitu- 
tion was not only imperfect in its organization, but is a political 
monster, born incapable of living, and containing a principle of self 
destruction. 

The Union must dissolve peaceably, whenever the caprice, the pas- 
sion or the ambition, of a few aspiring men of a State may will it, or 
it must be maintained by force. It is either disunion or civil war, or 
in the language of the times, disunion and blood. 

It is time to calculate, not the value, but the duration of the Go- 
vernment. 

But we are told no such consequences will ensue. That it is a 
safe remedy — a necessary check — a salutary restraint upon this un- 
controlled majority — a new balance in the Constitution, that will 
regulate all its motions. As soon as this new State power is acknow- 
ledged, there will be no more unconstitutional laws, no further en- 
croachment on the rights of the States. " The injured and oppressed 
State will assume her highest political attitude." She exercises her 
negative preventive power, she declares the law void, " the necessary 
" consequence" says the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Grundy,) 
" is, it must cease to operate in the State, and Congress must acqui- 
" esce, by abandoning the power, or obtain an express grant from 
" the great source from which all power is drawn. The General 
" Government would have no right to use force." "This will at all 
u times prove adequate to save this glorious system of ours from 
" disorder and anarchy." The parties claiming to exercise the pow- 



25 

er, must call a Convention of the States, and unless three-fourths of 
the States will consent to amend the Constitution, and confer the 
power, it must cease to exercise it. Thus a law passed in the usual 
form, with majorities in hoth Houses, approved by the President, 
may be annulled, by the veto of any State, and every power taken 
from Congress, unless three-fourths of the States are now willing to 
grant it. Let us see how this will operate. Suppose the 25th section 
of the Judiciary act annulled, the jurisdiction of the Court over all 
cases provided for by it must cease. Again — the Tariff has been de- 
clared a palpable violation of the Constitution : it must therefore 
cease to operate ; then the Supreme Court must not take any cogni- 
zance of any case arising under it, and Congress must not employ 
force ; it is therefore unnecessary to resist the laws, and there will be 
no rebellion or treason. But then, there will be no revenue. Con- 
gress has a right to lay duties for revenue. How much of this Tariff 
is for revenue ? for so much it is constitutional, as well as duties on 
articles not made in the country, and therefore not for the protection 
of domestic industry. What must be done in such a dilemma ? 

Every power which has been at any time denied to Congress, would 
have ceased. The Bank, after it had gone into operation, would have 
been compelled to shut its doors, and close the concern. All crimes 
not enumerated in the Constitution would be stricken from the Statute 
Book : the Embargo would have been declared inoperative ; the 25th 
section of the Judiciary act would have been rendered void; the Cum- 
berland Road, and subscriptions to canals, grants of land, and all In- 
ternal Improvement, would have been suspended on the veto of a sin- 
gle State. The Judiciary law could not have been repealed, and Lou- 
isiana and Florida could not have been acquired. 

Such is the vis inertia, that it is extremely difficult to get more than 
a bare majority for any measure. Some do not like its principle or 
its policy : Some are indisposed to change : some do not like £the 
time or the mode of proposing it. There are always reasons enough^ 
for opposing any proposition. Most great questions in deliberate 
bodies are carried by small majorities. The Embargo — the War — 
the Bank — the Tariff — are striking instances. The Constitution of 
the United States was adopted in Virginia, 89 to 79. Her late Con- 
stitution was passed by a majority of only 15. It cannot therefore 
be reasonably expected, that three-fourths of the States will ever con- 
cur in granting any power to Congress, that may be previously de- 
clared unconstitutional. The powers of the Government will be 
constantly frittered away, until it has no power to do good — no means 
to protect — no energy to act — no principle of union. 

But is the theory true, that, when the majority has pronounced, 
and the presumptuous are all in favor of the law, and it is suspended 
at the instance of a single State, that Congress are to be presumed 
in error, and must obtain the sanction of three-fourths of the States. 
Is it not, rather, more compatible with the theory and principles of 
the Government, that the complaining party, the resisting State, 
should call the Convention and make the appearand assure herself that 
she is right. A majority can repeal the law, and save further trouble. 

This negative is supposed to be necessary to the security of the 



26 

States, and the protection of the minority ; but its real operation will 
be to destroy the force and energy of the administration. " What 
« may at first sight appear a remedy, is, in reality, a poison ; to give 
«< the minority a negative upon the majority, which is always the case 
«< when more than a majority is requisite to a decision, is, in its ten- 
" dency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the les- 
" ser. Congress, (under the Confederation) from the non-atten- 
« dance of a few States, have been frequently in the situation of the 
" Polish Diet, when a single veto has been sufficient to put a stop 
" to all their movements. The sixtieth part of the Union has seve- 
" ral times been able to oppose an entire bar to its operations. This 
*< is one of those refinements, which, in practice, has in effect, the 
" reverse of what is expected from it in theory." — Federalist 

The wise men who framed this Constitution, knew, from the de- 
fects and infirmities of the Confederation, what was necessary to re- 
medy the errors and correct the evils of that system. They knew 
that it had been, in its operation upon States only, totally inadequate 
to the object of its institution ; that this Government must look be- 
yond the States, and operate directly through the agency of the Peo- 
ple, and upon the People. They knew the necessity of a high court, 
to decide all questions arising under it ; the want of a judiciary pow- 
er crowned the defects of the Confederation. " Laws are a dead letter, 
** without courts to expound and define their true meaning and opera- 
*' tion." •« This is more necessary, when the frame of the Govern- 
" ment is so compounded, that the laws of the whole are in danger of 
" being contravened by the laws of the parts." — [Federalist] 

They knew it was necessary to have a power to decide on all cases 
that contravened the authority of the Union, and to prevent the ex- 
ercise of the inhibited powers by the States, and all other questions 
which it was foreseen might arise under the new Government. This 
presented a question of exceeding great difficulty ; two plans were 
proposed, one to give power to the General Government to revise the 
laws of the States, and, the other, the right to use force. Mr. Pink- 
ney proposed " to render these prohibitions effectual, the Legislature 
" of the United States shall have power to revise the laws of the se- 
" veral States, that may be supposed to infringe the powers exclu- 
«* sively delegated by this Constitution to Congress, and to negative 
" and annul such as do." 

Mr. Randolph proposed — « The Legislature to negative all laws 
" passed by the several States, contravening, in the opinion of the 
4< National Legislature, the articles of Union, or any treaty, and to 
" call forth the force of the Union against any member of the Union 
** failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof." 

Upon more mature consideration, however, it was determined to 
extend the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to all cases that could 
arise under the Constitution, or the laws, or treaties. It was essen- 
tial to make the judiciary power co-extensive with the legislative 
power. 

The Constitution, therefore, provided that the judicial power should 
extend — 



27 

1 To all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, 

2 under the laws of the United States. 
S of treaties made by them. 

4 affecting ambassadors, ministers and consuls. 

5 of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. 

6 Controversies wherein the United States are a party. 

7 between two or more States. 

8 between a state and citizens of another State. 

9 between citizens of different States. 

10 between citizens of the State claiming lands under 

grants of different States. 

1 1 between a State or citizen and foreign States' cit- 

izens or subjects. 

Here is power granted to try all imaginable cases that can be de- 
scribed — all cases inlaw, equity, admiralty, or maritime jurisdiction 
— all that arise under the laws and constitution, and treaties, and then 
it extends to all controversies in which the United States may be a 
party, and especially those that arise under the constitution and in exe- 
cution of the laws. Cases in general must operate upon individuals 
and corporations, and not upon sovereign States. Thus for example 
under the Tariff, if the goods are introduced and not entered, they 
will be seized under the revenue laws — then it is a question in law 
arising under the laws of the United States ; if they resist the seizure, 
it is opposition to the laws ; the courts will proceed to judgment, and 
the President is authorized to call on the Executives of the States for 
the militia to execute the laws. If they refuse the militia, on the call 
of the President, then it is the Massachusetts case — if they oppose 
the laws by force how will they escape the crime of treason, and 
how will that differ from the western insurrection ? and all these are 
controversies in which the United States are a party ; if they enter 
the goods, and suit is instituted on the bond, the court will 
hear any defence, but they must decide, although the constitution, 
the power of the United States, or the sovereign power of a State, 
may be incidentally drawn in : when judgment is obtained and exe- 
cution issued, notwithstanding a sovereign State may be interested by 
her agents, it must be executed as in the Pennsylvania case to which 
I shall presently advert. 

It is a suit arising under the laws, and a controversy in which the 
United States are a party, and therefore within the judicial power of 
the Courts, expressly delegated by the Constitution. The Courts will 
proceed in the execution of the laws, and in the regular administra- 
tion of justice. Every law, so far as it acts on individuals, must be 
enforced by the Courts, and no State law can stop them. All contro- 
versies, in which the United States are a party, gives jurisdiction 
of all cases where her sovereign power is called in question ; and 
all questions of inhibited powers to the States, arise directly under 
the Constitution. 

The laws, in general, operate on the rights of individuals claiming 
under the sovereign power of the United States. Thus, the sove- 



28 

reignty of the United States made a Bank ; the sovereignty of Mary- 
land undertook to tax it; the United States denied the right; the 
Court decided this act of sovereignty on the part of Maryland to tax 
it, void. Here, the Corporation claim rights under the Constitution 
and law of the United States ; it is under the Constitution, and the 
law of the United States ; it will often happen that questions will 
arise between individuals claiming rights and powers under the two 
Governments. The wise heads that framed the Judiciary act saw 
this, and made the necessary provision of the 25th section. This 
presents an admirable system, perfect in all its parts, harmonious in 
all its operations ; which establishes justice, insures domestic tran- 
quillity, and preserves the Union. 

In the other alternative I see nothing but confusion and disorder, 
and in the end, disunion and anarchy. In pursuance of this organi- 
zation of the Court, one hundred and seven points or principles have 
been decided under the Constitution, each of which involved some 
disputed question with regard to the power of the General Govern- 
ment, or of the States, or of the Courts. It has fulfilled the design 
of its institution ; it has settled most of the doubtful points that ne- 
cessarily arose in putting this great machinery in operation. It has 
given form and consistency to the Constitution, and uniformity to the 
laws. It has preserved its own high character in the midst of political 
conflicts, and by its purity, elevation, dignity, and learning, maintained 
the confidence of the People ; and it will hold this place as long as its 
members pursue the even and quiet tenor of their way, high above 
the hopes of office or the reachings of ambition. But if they enter the 
political arena, and become aspirants there, they will catch the pas- 
sions of the people, and the spirit of parties, and they will perform their 
duties under their influence. They will either conform their opinions 
to the party they attempt to propitiate, and thus vary them from time 
to time, or degrade the Court with shameful disagreements, until it 
becomes a cabal instead of a Court ; they will lose as they will 
deserve to lose, the confidence of the country. 

The following list will exhibit the nature and number of the causes 
decided. The same case is sometimes counted under different heads : 

1. Declaring acts of Congress unconstitutional - 2 cases. 

2. constitutional - - 6 

3. Declaring State Laws constitutional - - 9 

4. unconstitutional - - 26 

5. Affirming judgments of State Courts - - 14 

6. Annulling do. do. - - 14 
T, Assenting to appeal Jurisdiction - - - 7 

8. Acquiescing in do. - - - 21 

9. States' parties really and nominally- - - 6 

10. incidentally - - - 4 

11. Opinions against the President - - - - 2 

12. in favor of the President - - - 2 

13. against the Secretary of State - - 2 

It may be remarked, that each of these cases involve some princi- 
ple of sovereign power. The right of the Court to decide then, 



29 

between individuals, has not been denied. No State has interposed. 
The opinions are generally approved by professional men throughout 
the country. Tliey prove the necessity, and demonstrate the indepen- 
dence of the tribunal. They have decided twenty-six State laws to 
be unconstitutional ; that is, interfering with the rights of the Gen- 
eral Government ; which, considering these as twenty-four States, 
are not equal to the number of decisions against the acts of Congress; 
now upon the principle assumed in debate, of the right of a sovereign to 
decide these questons of sovereignty for itself, the General Govern- 
ment ought to have declared through Congress, that these acts were 
void* Each sovereign State, having an interest in the case, would 
have a right to interpose her veto, and then the State must cease to 
act under it. But is not this judicial mode much easier and safer ? 
Suppose the State executes prohibited laws, and there is no tribunal to 
decide. The two authorities would come directly in conflict. The 
Court has annulled the judgments of State courts in fourteen cases, 
which drew in question the Constitution, laws or treaties of the 
United States, but has affirmed as many, which shows they have no 
bearing against the rights of States; and which, if it has had no 
other effect, has preserved the uniformity so essential to the adminis- 
tration of justice under them. It shows also the indispensable neces- 
sity of the 25th section of the Judiciary act ; it exhibits the fact, that, 
while only eight questions have arisen on the constitutionality of acts 
of Congress, thirty-five have occurred on that of State laws. In all 
these cases the line has been distinctly drawn between the two powers, 
and the two jurisdictions ; all parties acquiesce, and the whole system 
moves with the greatest harmony. 

But it is said they are the creatures of the Government. How ? 
They are members of the States, created by the People and by the 
States, to decide for all the People, and for all the States. They 
decide principles that act every where, and upon every class and 
interest, and must operate in all time. They must sustain the ju- 
risdiction you have conferred on them, and no more. Their cha- 
racter, talents, and fame are the best security and the highest gua- 
rantee for the faithful performance of their duty. They are se- 
lected for their signal qualifications, and will probably be of the do- 
minant party when appointed ; they are independent in their office; 
they decide before the whole country, and under the scrutiny of a 
learned and watchful profession, and subject to the jealous care of 
the State tribunals. The Court is permanent, whilst the executive 
and legislative branches are continually changing. Opinions, par- 
ties and men are undergoing constant revolution, while the principles 
of the Government, the construction of the Constitution, and the 
interpretation of the laws remain fixed. The Judiciary is the only 
principle of stability in the Government. 

It was undoubtedly the intention of the Convention to constitute a 
Supreme Court, to decide all cases of law or sovereignty, and the 
words are as general and as ample as the language admits. But, in 
addition to this, it is the duty of the President to take care that the 
laws be faithfully executed, and Congress have power to provide, and 



30 

they have provided, that the President may call forth the militia, to 
execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel in- 
vasions. Besides, the Congress have power to suspend the Habeas 
Corpus in cases of rebellion and invasion. This superintending power 
of the Government was understood perfectly by the framers of it. 
To secure the citizens of the respective States from being punishable 
as traitors to the United States, when acting expressly in obedience 
to the authority of their own State, it was proposed, in the Conven- 
tion, to add : " Provided, that no act or acts done by one or more of 
*< the States, against the United States, or by any citizen of any one 
♦' of the United States, under the authority of one or more, shall be 
m deemed treason, or punished as such ; but, in case of war being le- 
" vied by one or more of the States, against the United States, the 
" conduct of each party towards the other and their adherents, re- 
" spectively, shall be regulated by the laws of war and of nations." 
Which was not adopted— which sufficiently explains the views of the 
Convention. But, after the adoption of the Constitution, the State of 
North Carolina proposed, as an amendment, that no State should be 
declared in rebellion but by the consent of two-thirds of the States 
present — which also was not adopted. 

If this is the true interpretation of the meaning of the Constitu- 
tion, they will take upon themselves a heavy responsibility, who un- 
dertake, upon a mere abstract theory of right, to resist or to inter- 
fere with the regular and legal operations and functions of the dif- 
ferent branches of the Government, at the will and pleasure of the 
States. Having entered into civil society, and distributed the power 
into different hands, they contract the obligation of obedience — they 
are bound by the Constitution, which they have sworn to support. 

This question is reduced to a narrow compass. The right to resist 
an usurpation or a tyranny, is not denied. The right to use all the 
peaceful modes of redress, not doubted. It has been admitted that 
the Supreme Court may decide all cases between individuals. But 
it is said the States now claim the right to decide when the General 
Government exceed their authority — because that is a sovereign pow- 
er. I have endeavored to show that the power to decide all questions 
under the Constitution has been conferred on the Supreme Court ; 
and, if so, the question is concluded, whatever may be the form of 
the Government. 

If this is a pure and simple Confederation of States, they are 
bound by the Constitution, by all they have stipulated, and Ihey 
are obliged by their duty and by their oath to submit to the Court 
all matters of which they have jurisdiction — that is, every case 
arising under the Constitution and Laws, and every controversy 
in which the United States are a party; and they are moreover 
bound to show that, to decide on the unconstitutionality of a law, is 
an exception, and not included in this grant; they are bound to show 
that, in such a union of States, for certain great objects, each State 
has a right to decide, definitively, for herself, when the power is ex- 
ceeded. The Convention intended to provide for all cases that could 
occur ; if they have failed to remedy the evil that was foreseen, they 



81 

have made a Government, which, instead of heing a splendid fabric 
of human invention, is utterly impracticable, and which must exist 
only by the forbearance of the States. 

This was the defect of the Confederation — it had not the sanction 
of the People— it was ratified only by the State Legislatures ; and, 
therefore, reasoning from these theories of Government, it was said 
each Legislature had a right to repeal the law, and thereby annul the 
Confederation. It is said, in reply to this, in the Federalist : 

" However gross a heresy it may be to maintain that a party to a 
" compact has a right to revoke that compact, the doctrine itself has 
" had respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this 
" nature, proves the necessity of laying the foundations of the Na- 
" tional Government deeper than in the mere sanction of delegated 
" authority. The fabric of American Empire ought to rest on the 
" solid basis of the consent of the People. The streams of National 
*< power ought to flow immediately from the pure original fountain 
" of all legitimate authority." 

The right of a State to annul a law of Congress must moreover 
depend on their showing that this is a mere Confederation of States, 
which has not been done, and cannot be said to be true, although it 
should not appear to be absolutely a Government of the People. It 
is by no means necessary to push the argument, as to the character 
of the Government, to its utmost limit ,* the ground has been taken 
and maintained with great force of reasoning, that this Government 
is the agent of the supreme power, the People. It is sufficient for the 
argument that this is not a compact of States ; it may be assumed 
that it is neither strictly a Confederation nor a National Govern- 
ment : it is compounded of both — it is an anomaly in the political 

world — an experiment growing out of our peculiar circumstances 

a compromise of principles and opinions — it is partly federal, partly 
national. 

♦'The proposed Constitution is, in strictness, neither National or 
" Federal — it is a composition of both ; in its foundation, it is Fede- 
" ral, not National ; in the sources from which the ordinary powers 
«< of the Government are drawn, it is partly Federal, partly Nation- 
" al ; in the operation of these powers, it is National, not Federal ; 
" in the mode of amendment, it is neither wholly Federal nor wholly 
" National." — [Federalist] 

This was the great question solved by the Convention, Whether 
this Government should be a Confederation, founded on an equality 
of States, or a Union, upon the principle of population. The large 
States contended for representation of the People— -the small States 
for equality of States. The parties were nearly balanced, and upon 
this ground the great struggle was conducted. A majority of the 
People could not consent to be governed by a minority in the great 
concerns of this Government ; while the small States thought their 
safety consisttd in maintaining their equal share of the power. A 

majority of the Convention was in favor of the popular principle 

the House of Representatives was formed upon a representation of 
the People ; the States were equally divided in the formation of the 



32 

Senate— which led to a compromise, by which that branch was form- 
ed on the principle of equality of States, and the election of Presi- 
dent was rendered, in the first instance, popular, but upon a com- 
pound principle, growing out of the compromise. The Confederation 
was abandoned, as too defective to remedy ; the federative principle 
was retained, so far as to protect the rights of the small States, while 
it preserved those of the People of the large States, by the division and 
organization of the Legislative department, by which no law or treaty 
can be made without the concurrence of a majority of the People and 
of the States. The rights of both were farther protected by the veto 
of the Executive. The States are a part of the machinery of the Go- 
vernment, and constitute one great whole, and « a more perfect Union,' 
under the style of "We the People of the United States." This 
Government, thus constituted, for certain purposes, acts for the Peo- 
ple collectively, and directly upon the People of the Union, without 
any reference to the States. It does not act by States, or upon the 
States. It levies taxes, imposts, and duties, upon the People ; it ad- 
ministers justice in the States, upon individuals; it commands the mi- 
litia, &c. Now, having entered into this Government, by whatever 
name it may be known, so checked and balanced, with so many guards 
and precautions, wiiat is the principle upon which it is founded ? Cer- 
tainly, that a majority of the People and of the States should pass 
all laws, and that these should be the supreme laws of the land, and 
that every question of power under the Constitution and laws, should 
be decided by the Supreme Court. 

This, I think, has been shown by the substitution of the Supreme 
Court in the place of the other modes recommended, to give Congress 
the control of the State laws. By giving, in express terms, jurisdic- 
tion of all controversies in which the United States are a party, by 
the cotemporaneous construction of the Constitution in the Judiciary 
act ; by declaring the laws supreme ; by giving the President power 
to call out the militia, and making it his duty to execute the laws. 
The Court has uniformly exercised jurisdiction, which has been ap- 
proved, on an open appeal to the States. The President has carried 
the judgments, by force, into effect. The State tribunals have ac- 
knowledged the authority, and such is now the opinion of three -fourths 
of the People and of the States of this Union. 

It was believed, by those who framed the Constitution, that the 
laws would be supreme, and would be enforced by the National Ju- 
diciary. Mr. Monroe, in his message, in December, 1824, says, 
the Supreme Court " decides, in the last resort, on all great ques- 
** tions which arise under our Constitution, involving those be- 
" tween the United States, individually between the States and the 
" United States." Chief Justice Spence, 19 Johnson 164, says, " I 
" consider that Court as paramount, when deciding on an article of 
" the Constitution, and an act of Congress passed under its express 
4i injunction." 

In the case of Cohens vs. Virginia — « It (the Counsel) maintains 
" that, admitting the Constitution and Laws to have been violated by 
*' the judgment, it is not in the power of the Government to apply a 



as 

«* corrective. They maintain that the nation does not possess a de- 
" partment capable of restraining, peaceably, and by authority of 
«• law, any attempts which may be made, by a part, against the legi- 
*< timate powers of the whole; and that the Government is reduced 
" to the alternative of submitting to such attempts, or of resisting 
" them by force ; they maintain that the Constitution of the United 
" States has provided no tribunal for the final construction of itself, 
" or of the laws or treaties of the nation, but that this pow r er may 
" be exercised, in the last resort, by the Courts of every State in 
" the Union." The Court, however, decided in favor of the power 
of the Court. 

It has been objected by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. 
Smith] that a bare majority of the Supreme Court may decide the 
most important questions of State rights. The answer is, that no pro- 
vision was made in the Constitution — none was thought necessary. 
It is in the power of Congress at all times to change it, and to re- 
quire a large majority. This has been tried, and always resisted. 

It is objected, that when the Court is composed of seven, there may 
09 three on each side, and one may decide ; but this is favorable to the 
States, for if they affirm the constitutionality of a law, they only sanc- 
tion what has been previously declared by all the other branches of 
the Government. If a majority of one member decides against the 
law, his opinion countervails the weight of all the majority by 
which the law was passed ; so that when the constitutionality of a law 
is doubted, a single member, when there is a disagreement, may de- 
cide against the power of the Government. If more than a majority 
are required to declare a State law unconstitutional, by parity of 
reason, more than a majority must be required to declare an act of 
Congress unconstitutional. 

Having examined the question upon principle, let *us see if there 
is any precedent or authority for it. I believe there are but two gen- 
tlemen who have avowed the opinion. The gentleman from New 
Hampshire marched boldly up to the very boundary of the question, 
and stopped short ; he refused to vouch for the nullifying power, by 
which I infer it is not, in his opinion, the true democratic doctrine* 

There is no precedent except the Virginia and Kentucky resolu- 
tions ; they are merely declaratory that the States are parties to the 
compact, and that, in case of a palpable, dangerous, and deliberate 
violation of the Constitution, the State has a right to interpose. But 
how ? By annulling the law ? No ; but by declaring the act of 
Congress unconstitutional, and referring the question to the other 
States. It is a protest on the part of the State, and an appeal from 
Congress to the State authorities, who are also parties. The last 
Virginia resolution is in these words, after expressing the most sin- 
cere affection for their brethren of the other States: <( the General 
" Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other 
H States in confidence, that they will confer with this Common- 
" wealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts afore- 
" said are unconstitutional, and that the necessary and proper mea- 
" sures will be taken;- by each, for co-operating with this State, in 
3 



84 

«* maintaining, unimpaired, the authorities, rights, and liberties re- 
" served to the States respectively, or to the People," and for this 
purpose they were transmitted to the several States. 

In the debate, Mr. Mercer said : <« The State believed that some 
" of its rights had been invaded by the late acts of the General Go- 
" vernment, and proposed a remedy, whereby to obtain a repeal of 
« them. The plan contained in the resolutions appeared the most ad- 
*« visable ; force was not thought of by any one," " Nothing seemed 
" more likely to produce a temper in Congress for a repeal, than a 
" declaration similar to the one before the committee, made by a ma- 
" jority of States, or by several of them." " We do not wish," said 
Mr. Mercer, " to be the arm of the People's discontent, but to use 
" their voice," *< They (the States) can readily communicate with 
« each other in the different States, and unite their common forces 
u . for the protection of their common liberty." Mr. Barbour said : 
** The gentleman from Prince George had remarked, that these rcso- 
" lutions invited the People to insurrection and to arms ; but, if I 
" could conceive that the consequences foretold would grow out of the 
" measure, he would become its bitterest enemy," " but it would ap- 
" pear, by reference to the leading feature in the resolution, which 
" was, their being addressed, not to the People, but to the sister 
" States, praying, in a pacific way, their co-operation in arresting 
" the tendency and effect of unconstitutional laws." 

General Lee, said : " If the law was unconstitutional, he admitted 
" the right of interposition ; nay, it was their duty ; every good citi- 
" zen was bound to uphold them in fair and friendly exertions to cor- 
" rect an injury so serious and pernicious." 

But the object of these resolutions is more clearly and explicitly set 
forth by Mr. John Taylor, who introduced the resolutions. In his re- 
ply to the apprehensions of civil commotion, to which the resolutions 
were said to have a tendency* he said : "Are the Republicans possessed 
" of fleets and armies ? if not, to what could they appeal for defence 
" and support? To nothing but public opinion — if that should be 
" against them, they must yield. They had uttered what they con- 
" ceived to be truth, in firm, yet decent language ; and they had pur- 
" sued a system which was only an appeal to public opinion." 

He maintained that the 5th Article of the Constitution had provid- 
ed a remedy against encroachments by Congress on the States, upon 
the rights of the other, by the article — " Two-thirds of Congress may 
«« call upon the States for an explanation of any such controversy as 
" the present, by way of amendment to the Constitution, and thus 
t( correct an erroneous construction of its own acts, by a minority of 
" the States, while two thirds of the States are also allowed to com- 
ts pel Congress to call a Convention, in case so many should think 
M an amendment necessary for the purpose of checking the unconsti- 
" tutional acts of that body." He said «» the will of the People and 
«' the will of the States, were made the constitutional referee in the 
" case under consideration. The State was pursuing the only possi- 
" ble and ordinary mode of ascertaining the opinion of two thirds of 
" the States, by declaring its own, and asking theirs. He hoped 



85 

** these reprobated laws would be sacrificed to quiet the apprehen- 
4i sions even of a single State, without the necessity of a Convention, 
" or a mandate from three fourths of the States. He said, " firmness 
" and moderation could only produce a desirable coincidence between 
" the States." " Timidity would be as dishonorable as the violent 
«' measures which gentlemen on the other side recommended, in cases 
" of constitutional infractions, would be immoral and unconstitu- 
*< tional." 

Thus it appears that there is nothing in these resolutions^ that looks 
to the right of the State of Virginia herself to annul an act of Con- 
gress ; on the contrary, it is the very reverse. It is a declaration 
that the law, in their opinion, violates the Constitution, that the 
State has a right, as a party to the compact, to interpose, by refer- 
ring it to the consideration of the other parties to the compact: the 
language is too plain, and too explicit, to require comment. 

Two very important amendments were introduced, which evinced 
still further that it was not their intention to annul the laws, or to 
claim the right to interpose in that way. 

The first was; they declared, in the first of the resolutions, that 
the alien and sedition laws were unconstitutional, and not law, but 
utterly null and void, and of no force or effect. These nullifying ex- 
pressions were stricken out, upon the motion of Mr. Taylor himself. 
They were, no doubt, originally inserted merely to express the 
opinion that the necessary effect of their being unconstitutional was 
that they were not law, and null and void ; but it is evident, it was 
not in the contemplation of the Legislature, or of the author of them, 
that the Legislature, who was merely submitting the subject by way 
of appeal to the other States, could make the laws void by their declar- 
ation. Mr. Taylor said the plan proposed might eventuate in a 
Convention. He did not admit or contemplate that a Convention 
might be called ; he only said that if Congress, upon being addressed 
to have the laws repealed, should persist, they might, by a concur- 
rence of three-fourths of the States, be compelled to call a Conven- 
tion. 

The second amendment was in the third clause. — " The compact 
in which the States alone are parties." The word alone, stricken 
out on the motion of Mr. Giles. It had been said that the People 
only were the parties to the compact, and the resolutions declared 
the States alone were parties. Mr. Giles said "the General Go- 
vernment was partly of each kind ;" and therefore, moved to strike 
out alone. 

The opinion of Mr. Jefferson, which has been quoted in this de- 
bate, relative to calling a Convention, the proper arbiter in questions 
of sovereignty, correspond with those of the Legislature. In his let- 
ter to W. C. Nicholas, in September, 1799, then about to proceed to 
Kentucky, directing what was necessary to avoid the inference of ac- 
quiescence, and to procure a concert in the general plan of action, re- 
commended resolutions, 1st, answering the committee of Congress and 
the States that replied : 2d, making protestation against the prece- 



36 

dent and principle, and reserving the right of making this palpable 
violation of the Federal compact, the ground of doing in future what- 
ever we might now rightfully do, should repetitions of these and other 
violations of the compact, render it expedient : 3d, expressing in af- 
fectionate and conciliatory language our warm attachment to union 
with our sister States, and to the instrument and principles by which 
we are united." He says " Mr. Madison docs not concur in 
the reservation proposed above, and from this I recede readily, not 
only in deference to his judgment, but because, as we should never 
think of separation, but for repeated and enormous violation ; so these, 
when they occur, will be cause enough of themselves.' , 

I hold in my hand a letter from George Nicholas of Kentucky, in 
November, 1798. He was a conspicuous member of the Virginia 
Convention — an able lawyer and statesman — a distinguished Repub- 
lican, and a leading and influential man, in the day of the Kentucky 
resolutions. I read from this letter to show the views entertained 
then of the remedy against unconstitutional laws. "If you had 
" been better acquainted with the citizens of Kentucky, you would 
" have known, that there was no just cause to apprehend an improper 
u opposition to the laws from them. The laws we complain of may be 
" divided into two classes, those which we admit to be constitutional, 
" but consider as impolitic, and those which we believe to be uncon- 
" stitutional, and therefore do not trouble ourselves to inquire as to 
«< their policy, because we consider them as absolute nullities. The 
*' first class of laws having received the sanction of a majority of the 
" representatives of the People of the States, we consider as binding 
" on us, however we differ in opinion from those who passed them as 
ii to their policy ; and although we will exercise our undoubted right 
'** of remonstrating against such laws, and demanding their repeal as 
u far as our numbers will justify us in making such a demand : we 
" will obey them with promptitude, and to the extreme of our abili- 
« ties, so long as they continue in force. As to the second class on 
'< the unconstitutional laws, although we consider them as dead 
" letters, and therefore that we might legally use force in opposition 
" to any attempts to execute them ; yet, we contemplate no means 
" of opposition, even to those unconstitutional acts, but an appeal to 
" the real laws of our country. As long as our excellent Constitu- 
" tion shall be considered as sacred, by any department of our Go- 
" vernment, the liberties of our country are safe, and every attempt to 
'« violate them maybe defeated by means of law, without force or 
" tumult of any kind." He quotes the following to Hamilton : " The 
" complete independence of the Courts of Justice is peculiarly 
" essential in a limited Constitution, by a limited Constitution I 
" understand one which contains specific exceptions to the legislative 
" authority, such for instance, as that it shall pass no bill of attain- 
" der, no ex post facto and the like ; limitations of this kind 
«' can be preserved in practice, no other way, than through the 
" medium of the Courts of Justice, whose duty it must be to de- 
« clare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution 



87 

«< void. Without this, all reservations of particular rights or privi- 
•< leges amount to nothing." « It is more rational to suppose, that 
" the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the 
" People and the Legislature, in order, among other things, to keep 
u the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The iu- 
u terpretation of the law is the proper and peculiar province of the 
4i courts. A Constitution is in fact, and must be regarded by the 
<f judges as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to as- 
" certain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act, 
" proceeding from the Legislative body. If there should happen to 
*< be any irreconcileable variance between the two, that which has 
*■* the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be prefer- 
" red ; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to 
" the statute, the intention of the People to the intention of their 
" agents." "As long, therefore, as the Federal Courts retain their 
"honesty and independence, our Constitution and our liberties are 
f i safe;" «« but resistance ought not to be appealed to, except in cases 
'< of extreme danger and necessity : let all good men unite their efforts 
f* to prevent the U. States from being brought to that crisis." On 
the 14th November, 1799, four days after this letter, the Kentucky 
Legislature entered its solemn Protest against the laws which had 
been declared unconstitutional. The States of Maryland and Ohio 
had questions about the Bank of the U. States, which were sub- 
mitted to the Supreme Court. The constitutionality of the embar- 
go, which involved an immense amount, was settled by the Supreme 
Court. In fine, every question that has arisen in forty years, under 
the Constitution, has been satisfactorily settled ; and they have es- 
tablished many great and difficult principles which have now become 
the settled rule of construction and the law of the land ; and they 
will go on in the execution of this high duty, until they are stopped 
by the want of power in the Executive to execute the judgments 
of the Court, the power of a State to annul the laws, to the con- 
trary notwithstanding. 

But, happily for us, this question of the power of the Court, and 
the necessity and expediency of establishing another tribunal to de- 
cide on cases involving the sovereign power of the two Governments, 
has been formally submitted to the States, in a strong case, by a large 
State, and under the most imposing forms ; and was as solemnly re- 
jected. The State of Pennsylvania, in 1809, complained of an in- 
fringement of her State rights, by an unconstitutional exercise of 
power in the United States' Courts; that no provision had been made 
in the Constitution for determining disputes between the General and 
State Governments, by an impartial tribunal, when such cases oc- 
cur. The Legislature "Resolved, That, from the construction which 
" the United States' courts give to their powers, the harmony of the 
" States, if they resist encroachments on their rights, will frequent- 
M ly be interrupted ; and if, to prevent this evil, they should, on all 
" occasions, yield to stretches of power, the reserved rights of the 
«'< States will depend on the arbitrary power of the courts." 



88 

"To prevent the balance between the General and State Govcrn- 
" ments from being destroyed, and the harmony of the States from 
" being interrupted, Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be in- 
" structed, and our Representatives requested, to use their influence 
" to procure an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
" that an impartial tribunal may be established, to determine dis- 
" putes between the General and State Governments." 

These resolutions were submitted to all the States. I hold in my 
hand the answers of nine States, refusing the proposition, to wit: 
Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentuc- 
ky, New Jersey, Vermont, and New Hampshire — without one affir- 
mative State. 

Mr. Johnstox then read the answer of the State of Virginia — 
which was agreed to unanimously — as follows: 

" Thursday, January 11, 1810. 

" Mr. Peyton, from the Committee to whom was referred that part of the Govern- 
or's communication which relates to the amendment proposed by the State of Penn- 
sylvania, to the Constitution of the United States, made the following Report : 

" The Committee to whom was referred the communication of the Governor of 
Pennsylvania, covering certain Resolutions of the Legislature of that State, propos- 
ing an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, by the appointment of an 
impartial tribunal to decide disputes between the States and Federal Judiciary, have 
had the same under their consideration, and are of opinion that a tribunal is already 
provided, by the Constitution of the United States, to wit : the Supreme Courts more 
eminently qualified, from their habits and duties, from the mode of their selection, 
and from the tenure of their offices, to decide the disputes aforesaid, in an enlighten- 
ed and impartial manner, than any other tribunal which could be created. 

"The members of the Supreme Court are selected from those in the United States 
who are most celebrated for virtue and legal learning, not at the will of a single indi- 
vidual, but by the concurrent wishes of the President and Senate of the U. States : 
they will, therefore, have no local prejudices and partialities. The duties they have 
to perform lead them, necessarily, to the most enlargtd and accurate acquaintance 
with the jurisdiction of the Federal and State Courts together, and with the admira- 
ble symmetry of our Government. The tenure of their offices enables them to pro- 
nounce the sound and correct opinions they may have formed, without fear, favor, or 
partiality. 

" The amendment to the Constitution, proposed by Pennsylvania, seems to be foun- 
ded upon the idea that the Federal Judiciary will, from a lust of power, enlarge their 
jurisdiction, to the total annihilation of the jurisdiction of the State Courts? that they 
will exercise their will, instead of the Law and the Constitution. 

" This argument, if it proves any thing, would operate more strongly against the 
tribunal proposed to be created, which promised so little, than against the Supreme 
Court, which, for the reasons given before, have every thing connected with their ap- 
pointment calculated to ensure confidence. What security have we, were the propo- 
sed amendment adopted, that this tribunal would not substitute their will and their 
pleasure in place of the law ? The Judiciary are the weakest of the three Depart- 
ments of Government, and least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; 
they hold neither the purse nor the sword; and, even to enforce their own judgments 
and decisions, must ultimately depend upon the Executive arm. Should the Federal 
Judiciary, however unmindful of their weakness, unmindful of the duty which they 
owe to themselves and their country, become corrupt, and transcend the limits of their 
jurisdiction, would the proposed amendment oppose even a probable barrier in such 
an improbable state of thirgs ? 

** The creation of a tribunal, such as is proposed by Pennsylvania, so far as we are 
able to form an idea of it from the description given in the Resolutions of the Legis- 
lature of that State, would, in the opinion of your Committee, tend rather to invite, 
than to prevent, collision between the Federal and State Courts. It might also be- 



89 

come, in process of time, a serious and dangerous embarrassment to the operation of 
the General Government. 

" Heaolved, therefore, That the Legislature of this State do disapprove of the amend- 
ment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Legislature of Penn- 
sylvania." 

The Governor of Pennsylvania, by direction of the Legislature, 
transmitted the proceedings to the President of the United States. 
He said he was «« consoled with the pleasing idea that the Chief Ma- 
" gistracy of the Union is confided to a man who is so intimately 
" acquainted with the principles of the Federal Constitution, and 
" who is no less disposed to protect the sovereignty and independence 
" of the several States, as guarantied to them, than to defend the 
"rights and legitimate powers of the General Government; who 
" will justly discriminate between opposition to the Constitution and 
" Law s of the United States, and that of resisting a decree of a Judge, 
" founded, as it is conceived, in an usurpation of power and juris- 
" diction not delegated to him by either; and who is equally solicit- 
" ous, with himself, to preserve the Union of the States, and to ad- 
" just the present unhappy collision of the two Governments, in such 
" a manner as will be equally honorable to them both." To which 
Mr. Madison replied : «» Considering our respective relations to the 
" subject of these communications, it would be unnecessary, if not 
" improper, to enter into any examination of some of the questions 
" connected with it : it is sufficient, in the actual posture of the case, 
" to remark, that the Executive of the United States is not only un- 
" authorized to prevent the execution of a decree, sanctioned by the 
" Supreme Court of the United States, but is expressly enjoined, by 
" statute, to carry into effect any such decree, where opposition may 
"be made to it." He adds, that no legal discretion lies with the 
Executive to decline steps which might lead to a very painful issue. 
The proceedings were transmitted to Congress, who made no report 
thereon. The Governor of Pennsylvania determined to resist ; the 
marshal proceeded to execute the judgment ; the troops were drawn 
out ; but the Governor finally withdrew, and the marshal performed 
his duly. These are all the authorities I have met with. I have 
seen nothing that justifies the idea of the power of a State to annul 
the acts of Congress. They all look to an appeal to the other States 
— to conventions of the People, or to decisions of the Courts. It is 
to be regretted that this idea has been suggested : some, in moments 
of passion, may seek this violent remedy for partial and temporary 
evils. If the power was undoubted, it is one which might be kept 
from the people. It is the only secret I would keep from them ; the 
power by which a small majority of a State may produce anarchy, 
confusion, and civil war. Let us rather teach them how well they 
are, and how happy they ought to be ; how free and how prosperous ; 
shew 7 them the relative condition in the scale of human existence and 
political society ; shew them the miserable state of the mass of the 
people in every other country ; shew T them the wretched state cf pau- 
perism, and what we have recently read of the condition of a portion 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS f 

027 331 558 5 

V ., 40 

of the people in the freest government of Europe : let us teach them 
to enjoy the good they have. 

It has been said, the People have the power to break down the 
Government. That is a question of force. The majority can no 
doubt destroy a Government, as easily as make it. A majority of the 
numbers are presumed to have a majority of the force, and there- 
fore the minority submit to be governed by them, to avoid an appeal 
to force. But a minority can no more destroy the Government 
than they can make one; much less can a single State in a confede- 
racy, claim the right to control and counteract all the other States, 
unless that power has been conceded to each of the members of the 
Union by the compact, which is not pretended in this case. 

This Government was formed with all the checks and balances 
that were deemed necessary to protect the minority, whether of the 
People or of the States. This disposition to the exercise of power 
in the head, and the tendency to resistance in the members, was well 
understood. Propositions were made to protect the minority by 
additional guards ; by requiring the concurrence of two thirds. This 
was rejected in all cases except in the ratification of treaties, and in 
amendments to the Constitution. 

The principle of requiring more than a majority had been tried 
under the Confederation. It was found to paralyze the arm of the Go- 
vernment ; to take from it all energy, all power to exert its own pow- 
er, and to render it weak and inefficient. It is now said that 
" constitutional Government and a Government of a majority, are 
" utterly incompatible ; it being the sole purpose of a Constitution 
«* to impose limitations and checks upon the majority. An uncontroll- 
" ed majority is a despotism ; and Government is free, and will be per- 
«' manent, in proportion to the number, complexity and efficiency of 
" the checks, by which its powers are controlled." Without enter- 
ing into any discussion upon this abstract theory of Government, 
which has puzzled the wisest heads and confounded the clearest 
understandings, it is enough to say, that this is an objection to all 
Governments, and to the principles of the Constitution, which is 
not more perfect than any other human invention ; but is perhaps 
quite as free from error and difficulty as any other system that could 
be devised, and more perfect than any one which the States would 
now adopt : for no majority will consent to be controlled in the ex- 
ercise of their pow T ers by a complicated system of checks. But the 
objection to the power of a majority is* as good against all oppressive 
laws as against unconstitutional laws. 

Whatever defects may appear in the theory, in the abstract it -must 
be confessed, it has preserved, so far, domestic tranquillity, provided 
for the common defence ; it has regulated commerce, carried on war, 
made peace, established justice, and formed a more perfect Union. 
In fine, it has overcome every difficulty, and surmounted every ob- 
stacle ; It has proved itself adequate to all the purposes of a great 
empire in peace or war. 

Beyond this Union I do not venture to look ; beyond that, all is 
darkness. 

[Speech to be continued.] 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



027 331 558 5 



